Jump to content

Canada has a One-China policy which demonstrates massive failure


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

Also didn't mainstream media receive 500 million dollars from the Liberal government a few years ago?  What would anyone  expect MSM to say when they were paid off by the government?

Both the Canada Media Fund and the Canada Periodical Fund were created By Heritage Minister James Moore, in the government led by Prime Minister Harper. The latter fund was expanded to support legacy media such as the Trail Times and the Grand Forks Gazette to try to ensure local newspapers has a chance to survive. If the fund was designed to get the Gazette to be a mouthpiece for the Grits, it failed in that objective. At the time, local media was disappearing, meaning your local voice was being silenced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Assumes facts not in evidence and does not answer the question. 

Didn't you say you worked in law enforcement at one time?  Wouldn't that mean you would understand that in establishing the truth of something fits into a couple categories:

1.  Strong or direct evidence would be for events where you have actual eyewitnesses or video evidence for example.  Is that correct?

2. Circumstantial evidence (indirect evidence).   Most cases only have this type of evidence.  Is that correct?

   And isn't it a fact most issues or alleged events are determined by circumstantial or indirect evidence.  Courts, judges, and juries in most cases only have circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence.  That is what they use to determine what they would call a fact.  Is that correct?

   Therefore you seem to be obfuscating this issue by saying "not in evidence".   Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence is still evidence.  That is what evidence is and that is how most facts are established.   So lets be honest.

There is lots of evidence (indirect) in some cases or events that happened.  Others have little or scant evidence and some is questionable.  But facts are almost always determined by evidence (circumstantial or more direct, obvious or clear).

This article gives a lot more circumstantial evidence than the other one.

Of Course Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau’s Dad. Nobody Has ‘Debunked’ Anything | by Karen Leibowitcz | Medium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

since Ms. Trudeau was no where near Premier Castro at the time in question,

Says who?  

"They recite the Canadian governments’ official travel dates to Cuba and painfully avoid the Trudeaus’ extensive personal trip to the Caribbean trip in Spring 1971. It is a fact the Trudeaus were in the Caribbean in Spring 1971. It is a fact they adored Castro. It is a fact the Trudeaus were swingers. This is what you need to know."

Much more circumstantial evidence is given in the article.

Of Course Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau’s Dad. Nobody Has ‘Debunked’ Anything | by Karen Leibowitcz | Medium

I will agree there is no absolute proof of anything.  Of course anyone is free to believe what they wish.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Ms. Trudeau was no where near Premier Castro at the time in question

Wikipedia says they made a trip to the Caribbean at the time in question.

"In 1971, the Trudeaus took a second honeymoon in the Caribbean to Barbados and an unidentified nearby island then Tobago, then to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (including both Bequia and St. Vincent) with Pierre taking a side-trip to Trinidad while Margaret stayed in Tobago."

Margaret Trudeau - Wikipedia

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Wikipedia says they made a trip to the Caribbean at the time in question.

"In 1971, the Trudeaus took a second honeymoon in the Caribbean to Barbados and an unidentified nearby island then Tobago, then to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (including both Bequia and St. Vincent) with Pierre taking a side-trip to Trinidad while Margaret stayed in Tobago."

Margaret Trudeau - Wikipedia

 

So, from that, without any actual evidence, you are saying Premier Castro is Prime Minister Trudeau's father. That is funny. You seem to want to make what is a political disagreement with the Prime Minister, personal. You need to keep perspective. Politics is a sport. It is our national sport, but the rules of sportsmanship apply. It is not whether you win or lose, it is how you play the game.

You still have not shown why this is important. How does this relate to the Canadian government moving away from ties with China, in favour of closer ties with India?

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, from that, without any actual evidence, you are saying Premier Castro is Prime Minister Trudeau's father. That is funny. You seem to want to make what is a political disagreement with the Prime Minister, personal. You need to keep perspective. Politics is a sport. It is our national sport, but the rules of sportsmanship apply. It is not whether you win or lose, it is how you play the game.

You still have not shown why this is important. How does this relate to the Canadian government moving away from ties with China, in favour of closer ties with India?

I don't think I said he "is" Trudeau's father.   I simply pointed out the articles that say that and the evidence, which you chose to ignore.  My thinking is he could be, but there is no absolute proof.  There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that seems to point in that direction, which you choose to reject or ignore.

You deny there is actual evidence when in fact I gave you the link that gives a long story full of evidence.

No, its is not personal.  I have nothing against the PM except I disagree with much of his views and policies and laws.   That is a significant thing in my way of thinking.   You as a liberal of course disagree and think everything is fine.

I think his view of the world, of China, of Communist countries like Cuba are relevant and affect his thinking and how he governs Canada.  Of course this is relevant.  Only a diehard liberal would be in denial as you are.

So go ahead and carry on in your make believe world of denial and narrow view of everything.  You only accept what fits in with your world view and reject everything else out of hand.  You have lots of company on here.  Many think exactly like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 You as a liberal of course disagree and think everything is fine.

I don't know where you get that idea. I have been a Progressive Conservative since 1962. I supported Jean Charest in the latest CPC leadership race.

I have never voted Liberal, but that does not mean I would not defend any Prime Minister against unjust allegations. A Prime Minister represents the government of my country. He / She is appointed by the King. What makes a Conservative above all other considerations, is loyalty to the Crown. I disagree with the Prime minister on Defence policy, but I have disagreed with every Prime Minister on Defence Policy since Prime Minister Diefenbaker was defeated. But, when a government does something right, like defending the country against a hostile American congress in the NAFTA situation or defending Canadians against Covid 19, I support them. When they screw up such as the Liberal government under Prime Minister Pearson with the Rivard affair, the furniture scandals and the Spenser affair, I won't defend them. The same with the SNC Lavalin affair. Thanks to a strong Minister Wilson-Raybould, Prime Minister Trudeau was saved from an even worse outcome than losing his majority. It was better than he deserved, but since there was no one competant enough to replace him, he got away with non political life threatening injuries.

As a Progressive Conservative who believes in the heritage of Sir John A MacDonald, I no longer have a political party at the federal level, so I am in an independent position to support policies regardless of whose they are, especially shifting ties from China to India.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 12:15 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

God helps those who help themselves. We have the gift of intellect from God. That gives us the ability to gradually reduce the population without killing people. We just have to reduce the number of children we conceive. 

You seem to have missed the important memo about the coming population drop as the Boomer generation dies off.  Canada almost has a negative birth rate, which is why immigration continues to be pushed.  If Canadians had more kids, less immigration would be necessary to maintain the workforce. Really we should be able to live with a lower population over time as automation makes many jobs redundant, but we need to ensure that the profits generated through automation get to the public WITHOUT lapsing into totalitarian controls, which is essentially the managed economy or fake capitalism (top-down Chinese style totalitarian capitalism).

I believe that such totalitarian controls are the single greatest threat to humanity.  We can adapt to climate change by migrating, building dikes, constructing differently, etc.   Technology will reduce emissions over time. However, when “enlightened” leaders start limiting how much we can travel, what we can buy, to the degree of imprisoning people in their homes, under the threat of asset seizure, public ridicule, criminalization, etc., we’re in real trouble.

Canada is a sucker for top-down central planning. Canadians generally believe and do what governments and state-funded media say.  There’s no real opposition in Canada.  Liberal media instilled fear of cultural values and thinking for oneself, which are portrayed as extremist, colonial, patriarchal, etc.

Constitutional rights in Canada are increasingly compromised in the interest of the state’s current agenda. You have no constitutional property rights in Canada.

Pierre Trudeau’s flirtation with Castro and snubbing of the US seemed like the “cool” counter-cultural thing to do in the era of Vietnam and draft-dodging, but it has resulted in Justin’s Post-National State wherein Canada’s culture is erased and deplored as certain preferred groups are encouraged to dominate: Quebec, BC NDP, China, UN, certain well-connected Indigenous organizations, etc. The US had to force Canada into a corner over Huawei 5G.

The Trudeaus and many like-minded Liberal-NDP types are like the spoiled rich kid who rebels against the providers (US export market and NATO defence), causing all sorts of shit for the West.

We went from having a more values-based society with a strong Canadian dollar and shrinking taxes under Harper to this overbearing interventionist Liberal-NDP regime that constantly tells us how we should live and think while putting our economy at risk by overspending, hurting national pride, and reducing free speech.

Canada is increasingly a de facto one party state of government-dependent and controlled sucks.  We don’t have an independent foreign policy because our military is weakened and our PM constantly puts unaccountable international agendas ahead of the interests of Canadians.  From carbon taxes to over-regulation to suppression of constitutional rights, Canada is in a rut.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Pierre Trudeau’s flirtation with Castro and snubbing of the US seemed like the “cool” counter-cultural thing to do in the era of Vietnam and draft-dodging,

You don't think Prime Minister Diefenbaker and External Affairs Minister Howard Green set the precedent for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I don't know where you get that idea. I have been a Progressive Conservative since 1962. I supported Jean Charest in the latest CPC leadership race.

I have never voted Liberal, but that does not mean I would not defend any Prime Minister against unjust allegations. A Prime Minister represents the government of my country. He / She is appointed by the King. What makes a Conservative above all other considerations, is loyalty to the Crown. I disagree with the Prime minister on Defence policy, but I have disagreed with every Prime Minister on Defence Policy since Prime Minister Diefenbaker was defeated. But, when a government does something right, like defending the country against a hostile American congress in the NAFTA situation or defending Canadians against Covid 19, I support them. When they screw up such as the Liberal government under Prime Minister Pearson with the Rivard affair, the furniture scandals and the Spenser affair, I won't defend them. The same with the SNC Lavalin affair. Thanks to a strong Minister Wilson-Raybould, Prime Minister Trudeau was saved from an even worse outcome than losing his majority. It was better than he deserved, but since there was no one competant enough to replace him, he got away with non political life threatening injuries.

As a Progressive Conservative who believes in the heritage of Sir John A MacDonald, I no longer have a political party at the federal level, so I am in an independent position to support policies regardless of whose they are, especially shifting ties from China to India.

OK, thank you for clarifying your views.  I don't have much trust in politics and politicians as I have explained before.

I see the PC people as somewhere in between Liberals and today's CPC party.  I think they support things like abortion, carbon taxes, same-sex marriage, etc. They really aren't that much different from the Liberals.

I disagree with a lot of the CPC thinking.  Politicians try to appease the great mass of people.  That means some of us who believe in certain things like the sanctity of life are left on the outside.  Political parties might be necessary in our system, but they fall short in many ways.  I understand they are struggling to get the votes and win the next election. But thanks for explaining your point of view.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadian Government is a pretty accurate reflection of the voters. Canada's Military has been getting weaker since the end of the Diefenbaker era. I personally asked Stockwell Day if he planned to rebuild the Canadian Armed forces and he sluffed it off. No Canadian government in the last 60 years has done anything to make the Canadian Forces viable. The reason is not enough people are willing to join and even fewer are willing to pay for it. Even CPC members whine about taxes. A functional independent military will cost a lot of money.

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Constitutional rights in Canada are increasingly compromised in the interest of the state’s current agenda. You have no constitutional property rights in Canada.

What constitutional property rightsdid we have before that we don't have now?

 

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canadians generally believe and do what governments and state-funded media say

As I pointed out earlier, the funds supporting the Canadian media are a result of policies enacted by Heritage Minister James Moore in the government of Prime Minister Harper. The grits expanded it to protect your local legacy news media from going out of business.

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

We went from having a more values-based society with a strong Canadian dollar and shrinking taxes under Harper to this overbearing interventionist Liberal-NDP regime that constantly tells us how we should live and think while putting our economy at risk by overspending, hurting national pride, and reducing free speech.

 

Prime Minister Harper inherited a healthy surplus from the Liberals and blew it all during his time in office. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What constitutional property rightsdid we have before that we don't have now?

The right to own private property should have been enshrined in the 1982 Charter of Rights, but I don't believe it was.  Probably because of PM Pierre Trudeau's neo-Marxist views that the state comes ahead of the individual and that the individual has no sacred rights. 

We also have state provided medical care and private medical insurance and providers are not allowed in Canada.  There is nothing in the Charter of Rights that says you have a right to timely medical care.  What are the implications of that now that MAID is a reality in Canada?

Government also tried to offer MAID to some veterans but was caught in the act.  Since we are on the slippery slope of MAID and there is no respect for the sanctity of human life in Canada, what is there to stop the government from simply letting the public health care system to continue to go down the drain and simply make MAID more accessible for everyone who is desperate for help? 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I see the PC people as somewhere in between Liberals and today's CPC party.  I think they support things like abortion, carbon taxes, same-sex marriage, etc. They really aren't that much different from the Liberals.

I disagree with a lot of the CPC thinking.  Politicians try to appease the great mass of people.

That is because most people in Canada support a woman's right to decide if and when she wants to have a child. They also believe same sex marriage is fine and they believe that the coming catastrophe of global warming is bad, even though many people do not relize how bad it will be if we don't put the brakes on it now. 

Politicians try to appease the great mass of people because that is the very essence of democracy. Governments do what the people want. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The right to own private property should have been enshrined in the 1982 Charter of Rights, but I don't believe it was.  Probably because of PM Pierre Trudeau's neo-Marxist views that the state comes ahead of the individual and that the individual has no sacred rights.  

What kind of private property are we talking about? I can't think of any private property right that we had before, that has been lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What kind of private property are we talking about? I can't think of any private property right that we had before, that has been lost.

In the same sentence that states Trudeau established the charter of rights... says Trudeau hated rights.

 

What exactly is the "right" to own things?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What kind of private property are we talking about? I can't think of any private property right that we had before, that has been lost.

The question is not whether or not we had private property rights before or not.  The question is that we do not have certain private property rights that other countries have now.

"TRUDEAU’S JUSTICE MINISTER DAVID LAMETTI HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT PEOPLE DON’T HAVE AN “ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY” IN CANADA.

CANADA IS SLIDING DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE INTO AUTHORITARIAN CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY, BANK ACCOUNTS AND MORE."

Obviously this has serious consequences.  The government has the power to seize bank accounts, which we saw last year, without any kind of due process and individual rights.  The government can seize any assets or property of anyone in Canada without a person having a legitimate opportunity of defense in a court of law.

This is slippery slope much like the slippery slope of medical assistance in dying.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What exactly is the "right" to own things? 

Its simple really.  Do you own anything?  Would you consider it wrong for government to just walk in and take it away?  Right to own means they can't do that.  It Canada it is questionable because the Charter of Rights gave government every right to do whatever they want unless the Charter states otherwise.  Its kind of a Charter that gives only those rights that are stated in the Charter and anything not in there is not a right.  Sort of a negative Charter of Rights.  Also any rights stated in the Charter are subject to the limitations stated in Supreme Court rulings.  Do you think PM Pierre Trudeau knew this when he brought in the Charter of Rights?  Of course he did.  He would have had to know since he was the PM and supposedly knew what he was doing.

Government has the power to simply take away from you anything they decide.  They don't need to pass a law or go through a court or give you a due process to defend your right because in Canada in general it does not exist, particularly with regard to government action.  Its kind of like a Communist dictatorship.  Government can simply seize your bank account or anything you own.   If you don't believe it, ask Justice minister David Lametti.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Canadian Government is a pretty accurate reflection of the voters. Canada's Military has been getting weaker since the end of the Diefenbaker era. I personally asked Stockwell Day if he planned to rebuild the Canadian Armed forces and he sluffed it off. No Canadian government in the last 60 years has done anything to make the Canadian Forces viable. The reason is not enough people are willing to join and even fewer are willing to pay for it. Even CPC members whine about taxes. A functional independent military will cost a lot of money.

What constitutional property rightsdid we have before that we don't have now?

 

As I pointed out earlier, the funds supporting the Canadian media are a result of policies enacted by Heritage Minister James Moore in the government of Prime Minister Harper. The grits expanded it to protect your local legacy news media from going out of business.

Prime Minister Harper inherited a healthy surplus from the Liberals and blew it all during his time in office. 

When Harper started funding legacy media it was to rescue it rather than influence it.

Yes Diefenbaker started military reductions but it got a lot worse in the 70’s.

Harper only reversed course on spending after the 2008 crisis. He maintained a contingency fund and a plan to return to being in the black.  Our dollar was strongest it’s been in decades and we avoided the painful US recession.  Justin moved straight into deficit spending with his reckless debt-to GDP scheme.  He added taxes, including the carbon taxes, and got rid of the tax write-off for child sports and arts activities.  He also put Canada firmly in bed with China and God knows what dangerous virology information was shared with the Chinese researchers who were fired.  He also mandated a pro abortion stance for Liberal party members and federal workers.  He caused major national shame and hemorrhaging of funds over his various Indigenous suck-up schemes.  He imposed martial law on thousands of lawful protesters, publicly smeared political opponents, and went after their money.

Trudeau has done more damage to Canada than any PM in all of Canadian history.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is because most people in Canada support a woman's right to decide if and when she wants to have a child. They also believe same sex marriage is fine and they believe that the coming catastrophe of global warming is bad, even though many people do not relize how bad it will be if we don't put the brakes on it now. 

You make that claim that most people support abortion,.... etc.  but there has never been a vote.  The truth is you are just assuming or claiming that.  Either way, that doesn't make it right.  Right or wrong is not determined by votes or polls.  If people were asked if they would like a basic income and it would pay for their accommodation, food, and other expenses, most people might say yes.  But it would prove nothing.  Same with everything else.  Just pandering to the masses is not leadership, but that is what many politicians are all about.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Government can simply seize your bank account

There is a difference between suspending bank accounts and seizing bank accounts. Funds maybe seized as the proceeds of crime. Vehicles may be seized for various violations of the highway traffic acts in provinces.

What has this got to do with Canada's one China policy. Canada's one China policy is the same as the one China policies of Gambia, Australia, the USA, and the United Kingdom, among others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What has this got to do with Canada's one China policy. Canada's one China policy is the same as the one China policies of Gambia, Australia, the USA, and the United Kingdom, among others.

I never said it wasn't the same.  Why is it necessary to have any kind of one China policy?  Why seek to have a relationship with a Communist system that denies human rights on a massive scale?  What is the difference between having a relationship with a Communist country like China or a Fascist country like Hitler's Nazis regime? 

The Canadian government claims they are opposed to the denial of human rights while doing everything they can to enable trade and business with China for decades.   Isn't that hypocritical?  It seems Liberals were the main enablers in trade with China since the Communist revolution in 1949.   China is Canada's second largest trading partner.  Or do you believe all that is needed is the virtue signaling by Trudeau now and then and business as usual with the dictatorship?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...